Ed tells me that my Darwin is now extruding at half the speed of the Stratasys FDM machine - albeit at a lower quality. Once I've replicated my combined output will be approximately the same as said machine with significantly less outlay. So, if you're wondering how many RepRap bits I've actually made from PLA, and hence how far off replication we are, have a look at the picture.
There's a variety of different versions of software in use, with the old ones looking distinctly lumpy, but the parts are functional.
Vik :v)
Awesome! Those recent parts look especially great. What percent would you say you are to having replicated all of the FDM parts for Darwin?
ReplyDeleteI dunno 15-20%?
ReplyDeleteVik :v)
A main page photo I reckon...
ReplyDeleteTalking of which, seeing as we have quite a fantastic collection of main pagers, does anyone else think it would be cool to put the whole collection of them on a random load?
It seems a shame to replace them completely...
The next question would be how do you do that?
How functional are they? If you build a machine from these parts, is the second generation going to be worse? Or is there some error correction built in somewhere?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete> is the second generation going to be worse?
ReplyDeleteConventional machine tools are designed so that all important parts and settings have screw-adjusters on, so you can make the machine precise by measurement, rather than by hoping all the bits are the right size. RepRap is just the same.
> A main page photo I reckon...
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Don't worry if you haven't the time, Vik, but - if you have - can you do a pic with the replicated extruder too?
> the whole collection of them on a random load
Ideally with captions and dates (wiki rollback)...
Dude! I say that qualifies as proof-of-principle, right there.
ReplyDeleteI'm gettin' reprap chills.
This is pretty amazing stuff. Congrats!
ReplyDelete